Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

President George H.W. Bush has died, age 94.

Posts

Grading history on a curve is not a good idea because history doesn't work that way. Plenty of people have always hated slavery, homophobia, misogyny etc. Yes, there have been worse times and better times, but these things go back and forth, which is why you must fight for them!

It also makes me think about how much society has changed since he was president. I know it doesn't seem like much, but there has been a sea-change in how we view certain issues.

Couscous's comment about him being forced to give a shit about HIV people is pretty much spot on. BUUUUT, at the time HIV was a marginal disease that affected a pretty hated group(the Gays if you felt nice, the Fags or Queers if not). Like 10 000 people worldwide, the vast majority of them Gay. In a world where cancer and heart problems killed because bypass surgery and MRI where experimental tech reserved only for a few test-subjects.

And Gay people where not the marginal group they are today. They where actively hated, discriminated and Marginalized by a large portion of the population. Why? Because there was a wide belief that Gay = perverts and child Molesters . Yes, that was a fairly common belief. One held by a substantial portion of the general population. (Most people's exposure to Gays was either Church propaganda or the occasional gays that approached them in dark alleys and bathroom stalls).

Lets not even get into how much change we have seen with Trans people. I mean up until around 2010-12, you could used Tranny in conversation without people commenting on it. Certainly jokes about "Tranny hookers" was still a thing.

What I am saying is that he was quite Homophobic, but that it was quite a Homophobic time. People should read the book And the Band Played on for how bad it was... then remember its still pretty bad.

All right, here's your $5 for winning the contest of "who can string the most slurs together to say the 80s and 90s were homophobic"

I think that "sure he was homophobic, but lots of people were homophobic then" might work as a reason to keep your grandpa's watch that you inherited.

I think it is less successful as a defense for a goddamn President of the USA letting a lot of people die and delaying or setting back acceptance significantly. but maybe I'm not white and heterosexual enough.

Grading history on a curve is a bad idea. “Well it was the 1800s, lots of people were fine with slavery.” Not the abolitionists! The whole idea ends up encouraging us to excuse not just the past but the present, where plenty of people still hold execrable views, none of whom should be our leaders. We should behave now like the future is watching. We should look back ourselves with clear eyes.

I'm sure by our standards the abolitionists had their own problems.

We do this in our own lives all the time, every time we look back and cringe at a younger version of ourselves. It's how we know we made progress. Hating the past might as well mean hating the present, yourself and everything in it, because doubtless all this will one day be the past as well.

This isn't his funeral, none of his family or friends are here. He was a public figure who had a significant public impact on all of our lives and the world in general. People don't deserve respect just because they are no longer alive, and their actions don't cease to matter.

It also makes me think about how much society has changed since he was president. I know it doesn't seem like much, but there has been a sea-change in how we view certain issues.

Couscous's comment about him being forced to give a shit about HIV people is pretty much spot on. BUUUUT, at the time HIV was a marginal disease that affected a pretty hated group(the Gays if you felt nice, the Fags or Queers if not). Like 10 000 people worldwide, the vast majority of them Gay. In a world where cancer and heart problems killed because bypass surgery and MRI where experimental tech reserved only for a few test-subjects.

And Gay people where not the marginal group they are today. They where actively hated, discriminated and Marginalized by a large portion of the population. Why? Because there was a wide belief that Gay = perverts and child Molesters . Yes, that was a fairly common belief. One held by a substantial portion of the general population. (Most people's exposure to Gays was either Church propaganda or the occasional gays that approached them in dark alleys and bathroom stalls).

Lets not even get into how much change we have seen with Trans people. I mean up until around 2010-12, you could used Tranny in conversation without people commenting on it. Certainly jokes about "Tranny hookers" was still a thing.

What I am saying is that he was quite Homophobic, but that it was quite a Homophobic time. People should read the book And the Band Played on for how bad it was... then remember its still pretty bad.

All right, here's your $5 for winning the contest of "who can string the most slurs together to say the 80s and 90s were homophobic"

I think that "sure he was homophobic, but lots of people were homophobic then" might work as a reason to keep your grandpa's watch that you inherited.

I think it is less successful as a defense for a goddamn President of the USA letting a lot of people die and delaying or setting back acceptance significantly. but maybe I'm not white and heterosexual enough.

Grading history on a curve is a bad idea. “Well it was the 1800s, lots of people were fine with slavery.” Not the abolitionists! The whole idea ends up encouraging us to excuse not just the past but the present, where plenty of people still hold execrable views, none of whom should be our leaders. We should behave now like the future is watching. We should look back ourselves with clear eyes.

I'm sure by our standards the abolitionists had their own problems.

Well yes, British abolitionist would hold meetings talking about the moral evil of slavery whilst drinking tea extracted from China by force and opium.

It also makes me think about how much society has changed since he was president. I know it doesn't seem like much, but there has been a sea-change in how we view certain issues.

Couscous's comment about him being forced to give a shit about HIV people is pretty much spot on. BUUUUT, at the time HIV was a marginal disease that affected a pretty hated group(the Gays if you felt nice, the Fags or Queers if not). Like 10 000 people worldwide, the vast majority of them Gay. In a world where cancer and heart problems killed because bypass surgery and MRI where experimental tech reserved only for a few test-subjects.

And Gay people where not the marginal group they are today. They where actively hated, discriminated and Marginalized by a large portion of the population. Why? Because there was a wide belief that Gay = perverts and child Molesters . Yes, that was a fairly common belief. One held by a substantial portion of the general population. (Most people's exposure to Gays was either Church propaganda or the occasional gays that approached them in dark alleys and bathroom stalls).

Lets not even get into how much change we have seen with Trans people. I mean up until around 2010-12, you could used Tranny in conversation without people commenting on it. Certainly jokes about "Tranny hookers" was still a thing.

What I am saying is that he was quite Homophobic, but that it was quite a Homophobic time. People should read the book And the Band Played on for how bad it was... then remember its still pretty bad.

All right, here's your $5 for winning the contest of "who can string the most slurs together to say the 80s and 90s were homophobic"

I think that "sure he was homophobic, but lots of people were homophobic then" might work as a reason to keep your grandpa's watch that you inherited.

I think it is less successful as a defense for a goddamn President of the USA letting a lot of people die and delaying or setting back acceptance significantly. but maybe I'm not white and heterosexual enough.

Grading history on a curve is a bad idea. “Well it was the 1800s, lots of people were fine with slavery.” Not the abolitionists! The whole idea ends up encouraging us to excuse not just the past but the present, where plenty of people still hold execrable views, none of whom should be our leaders. We should behave now like the future is watching. We should look back ourselves with clear eyes.

I'm sure by our standards the abolitionists had their own problems.

We do this in our own lives all the time, every time we look back and cringe at a younger version of ourselves. It's how we know we made progress. Hating the past might as well mean hating the present, yourself and everything in it, because doubtless all this will one day be the past as well.

It’s not easy, being a good person. We have to hold ourselves and our leaders to an honest moral standard. I’m not saying we have to hate the past, but we shouldn’t excuse it.

0

milskiTheir Will comes, at last, to Earth, to the Neath, as a storm crosses the sea.Registered Userregular

It also makes me think about how much society has changed since he was president. I know it doesn't seem like much, but there has been a sea-change in how we view certain issues.

Couscous's comment about him being forced to give a shit about HIV people is pretty much spot on. BUUUUT, at the time HIV was a marginal disease that affected a pretty hated group(the Gays if you felt nice, the Fags or Queers if not). Like 10 000 people worldwide, the vast majority of them Gay. In a world where cancer and heart problems killed because bypass surgery and MRI where experimental tech reserved only for a few test-subjects.

And Gay people where not the marginal group they are today. They where actively hated, discriminated and Marginalized by a large portion of the population. Why? Because there was a wide belief that Gay = perverts and child Molesters . Yes, that was a fairly common belief. One held by a substantial portion of the general population. (Most people's exposure to Gays was either Church propaganda or the occasional gays that approached them in dark alleys and bathroom stalls).

Lets not even get into how much change we have seen with Trans people. I mean up until around 2010-12, you could used Tranny in conversation without people commenting on it. Certainly jokes about "Tranny hookers" was still a thing.

What I am saying is that he was quite Homophobic, but that it was quite a Homophobic time. People should read the book And the Band Played on for how bad it was... then remember its still pretty bad.

All right, here's your $5 for winning the contest of "who can string the most slurs together to say the 80s and 90s were homophobic"

I think that "sure he was homophobic, but lots of people were homophobic then" might work as a reason to keep your grandpa's watch that you inherited.

I think it is less successful as a defense for a goddamn President of the USA letting a lot of people die and delaying or setting back acceptance significantly. but maybe I'm not white and heterosexual enough.

Grading history on a curve is a bad idea. “Well it was the 1800s, lots of people were fine with slavery.” Not the abolitionists! The whole idea ends up encouraging us to excuse not just the past but the present, where plenty of people still hold execrable views, none of whom should be our leaders. We should behave now like the future is watching. We should look back ourselves with clear eyes.

I'm sure by our standards the abolitionists had their own problems.

We do this in our own lives all the time, every time we look back and cringe at a younger version of ourselves. It's how we know we made progress. Hating the past might as well mean hating the present, yourself and everything in it, because doubtless all this will one day be the past as well.

On the other hand war crimes were bad then too. As was letting people die of a terrible disease because you didn't like them.

We cringe at '80s fashion, we don't cringe at '80s war crimes. We don't go "but see at the time war crimes weren't considered bad" because that is obviously bunk and not in the slightest an excuse.

The only point where you can say "we can't draw a moral comparison" is pre-Renaissance. Once you hit the Renaissance, the modern humanistic philosophy that we base our own values on exists and is widespread in the ruling class of Europe.

We're still having arguments about whether slavery is really so bad that the Spaniards were having in 1550.

Jephery on December 2018

}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".

Meet Sully, the service dog. Sully joined the Bush household after Barbara’s death, to help George around the house. He will be traveling to DC on Air Force One and will be keeping George company as he lies in state.

After this, it’s expected that Sully will go to Walter Reed, where he will continue to help veterans.

Meet Sully, the service dog. Sully joined the Bush household after Barbara’s death, to help George around the house. He will be traveling to DC on Air Force One and will be keeping George company as he lies in state.

After this, it’s expected that Sully will go to Walter Reed, where he will continue to help veterans.

Good dog, Sully.

I first saw this tweet on the news with the caption sans context and thought "Like did he kill the old man, or?"

It also makes me think about how much society has changed since he was president. I know it doesn't seem like much, but there has been a sea-change in how we view certain issues.

Couscous's comment about him being forced to give a shit about HIV people is pretty much spot on. BUUUUT, at the time HIV was a marginal disease that affected a pretty hated group(the Gays if you felt nice, the Fags or Queers if not). Like 10 000 people worldwide, the vast majority of them Gay. In a world where cancer and heart problems killed because bypass surgery and MRI where experimental tech reserved only for a few test-subjects.

And Gay people where not the marginal group they are today. They where actively hated, discriminated and Marginalized by a large portion of the population. Why? Because there was a wide belief that Gay = perverts and child Molesters . Yes, that was a fairly common belief. One held by a substantial portion of the general population. (Most people's exposure to Gays was either Church propaganda or the occasional gays that approached them in dark alleys and bathroom stalls).

Lets not even get into how much change we have seen with Trans people. I mean up until around 2010-12, you could used Tranny in conversation without people commenting on it. Certainly jokes about "Tranny hookers" was still a thing.

What I am saying is that he was quite Homophobic, but that it was quite a Homophobic time. People should read the book And the Band Played on for how bad it was... then remember its still pretty bad.

All right, here's your $5 for winning the contest of "who can string the most slurs together to say the 80s and 90s were homophobic"

I think that "sure he was homophobic, but lots of people were homophobic then" might work as a reason to keep your grandpa's watch that you inherited.

I think it is less successful as a defense for a goddamn President of the USA letting a lot of people die and delaying or setting back acceptance significantly. but maybe I'm not white and heterosexual enough.

Grading history on a curve is a bad idea. “Well it was the 1800s, lots of people were fine with slavery.” Not the abolitionists! The whole idea ends up encouraging us to excuse not just the past but the present, where plenty of people still hold execrable views, none of whom should be our leaders. We should behave now like the future is watching. We should look back ourselves with clear eyes.

I'm sure by our standards the abolitionists had their own problems.

We do this in our own lives all the time, every time we look back and cringe at a younger version of ourselves. It's how we know we made progress. Hating the past might as well mean hating the present, yourself and everything in it, because doubtless all this will one day be the past as well.

It’s not easy, being a good person. We have to hold ourselves and our leaders to an honest moral standard. I’m not saying we have to hate the past, but we shouldn’t excuse it.

It always kind of irks me that people have a tendency to take "This person/people did awful things," all the way to "They were a monster, theirbtouch was poison, everything they did-even the things that have clear positives- are irredeemably tainted, and they have zero redeeming qualities whatsoever."

Yeah some people deserve that to be said about them, but You do not have to do the later to get across the former, and acknowledging any good they did shouldn't diminish the criticism of the bad.

Look back to the past with pride, both in what we have accomplished, and how we have improved over our forbears as a society. Just keep in mind how much further we can still go.

I'm a bit too young to remember Bush Sr with much clarity (not to mention I'm Swedish). But from what I can remember he seemed like a pretty good war president. Him and Schwartzkopf made a pretty good team during the First gulf war. Sure, he's the same guy that was at least partly responsible for the US military cloak and dagger during the 80s, but him and Clinton set a generally positive tone for US military interventions in the 90s...until. You know. Bush Jr.

"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden

I'm a bit too young to remember Bush Sr with much clarity (not to mention I'm Swedish). But from what I can remember he seemed like a pretty good war president. Him and Schwartzkopf made a pretty good team during the First gulf war. Sure, he's the same guy that was at least partly responsible for the US military cloak and dagger during the 80s, but him and Clinton set a generally positive tone for US military interventions in the 90s...until. You know. Bush Jr.

And the US and coalition forces were heavily criticized for targeting Iraqi civilian infrastructure to increase the effect of sanctions. They essentially destroyed the countries entire electrical capacity, along with most of its refineries and factories. The resulting crisis in Iraq caused far more deaths than the war itself (100k in a conservative estimate). With the continued sanctions and no-fly zones that is hardly surprising.

If it seemed generally positive, that might be because it was cheap, quick and the media was censored.

I'm a bit too young to remember Bush Sr with much clarity (not to mention I'm Swedish). But from what I can remember he seemed like a pretty good war president. Him and Schwartzkopf made a pretty good team during the First gulf war. Sure, he's the same guy that was at least partly responsible for the US military cloak and dagger during the 80s, but him and Clinton set a generally positive tone for US military interventions in the 90s...until. You know. Bush Jr.

And the US and coalition forces were heavily criticized for targeting Iraqi civilian infrastructure to increase the effect of sanctions. They essentially destroyed the countries entire electrical capacity, along with most of its refineries and factories. The resulting crisis in Iraq caused far more deaths than the war itself (100k in a conservative estimate). With the continued sanctions and no-fly zones that is hardly surprising.

If it seemed generally positive, that might be because it was cheap, quick and the media was censored.

With the exception of the Amiriyah bombing all of those are/were legitimate targets in war, using legitimate methods. If it had been WWII they would have done even worse things (as back then the methods were this or flamethrower tanks when it was possible to avoid infantry assault).

"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden

You guys applaud him, but that dog oversaw a program selling drugs to black kids to fund arms deals overseas.

The man was also part of the CIA during the de-democratization of South & Central America. There's a good amount of blood on his hands.

This whole thing is maddening. He was a dedicated public servant for most of his life, doing the best he could in the given circumstance. He also made some terrible decisions in that capacity, some of which have had lasting effects to this day.

I'm a bit too young to remember Bush Sr with much clarity (not to mention I'm Swedish). But from what I can remember he seemed like a pretty good war president. Him and Schwartzkopf made a pretty good team during the First gulf war. Sure, he's the same guy that was at least partly responsible for the US military cloak and dagger during the 80s, but him and Clinton set a generally positive tone for US military interventions in the 90s...until. You know. Bush Jr.

And the US and coalition forces were heavily criticized for targeting Iraqi civilian infrastructure to increase the effect of sanctions. They essentially destroyed the countries entire electrical capacity, along with most of its refineries and factories. The resulting crisis in Iraq caused far more deaths than the war itself (100k in a conservative estimate). With the continued sanctions and no-fly zones that is hardly surprising.

If it seemed generally positive, that might be because it was cheap, quick and the media was censored.

With the exception of the Amiriyah bombing all of those are/were legitimate targets in war, using legitimate methods. If it had been WWII they would have done even worse things (as back then the methods were this or flamethrower tanks when it was possible to avoid infantry assault).

Attacking soldiers fleeing back to their own country after a cessation of hostilities is declared are considered legitimate targets in war? Indiscriminately bombing said soldiers while they're surrounded by civilians is legitimate methods?

"We would have done it in WWII" well the USAF nuked a couple of cities in WWII, don't think lobbing a MIRV over Baghdad would have been excuseable either. That's not an excuse.

No, he is saying it would have been worsein WW2.
The technology of guided munitions has saved -probably- millions of lives at this point vs using large bombing campaigns that were done just 20 years earlier in Vietnam.

As someone who is old enough to remember watching the Gulf War live, the worst part was the huge boner it gave both the American media and our political class for future conflicts. The media was full of stories about how we had finally shaken off our post-Vietnam malaise, smart bomb videos were shown over and over as cool real-life special effects, and Wolf Blitzer and Bernard Shaw got way too excited reporting from a Baghdad hotel room.

That moment in time was crucial to creating a world where it feels like coffins will still be coming back from the Mideast, Afghanistan, and Africa when our grandchildren start having grandchildren.

I'm a bit too young to remember Bush Sr with much clarity (not to mention I'm Swedish). But from what I can remember he seemed like a pretty good war president. Him and Schwartzkopf made a pretty good team during the First gulf war. Sure, he's the same guy that was at least partly responsible for the US military cloak and dagger during the 80s, but him and Clinton set a generally positive tone for US military interventions in the 90s...until. You know. Bush Jr.

And the US and coalition forces were heavily criticized for targeting Iraqi civilian infrastructure to increase the effect of sanctions. They essentially destroyed the countries entire electrical capacity, along with most of its refineries and factories. The resulting crisis in Iraq caused far more deaths than the war itself (100k in a conservative estimate). With the continued sanctions and no-fly zones that is hardly surprising.

If it seemed generally positive, that might be because it was cheap, quick and the media was censored.

With the exception of the Amiriyah bombing all of those are/were legitimate targets in war, using legitimate methods. If it had been WWII they would have done even worse things (as back then the methods were this or flamethrower tanks when it was possible to avoid infantry assault).

There is a reason the Geneva Conventions got updated in 1949.

Attacking soldiers who have laid down their arms or can otherwise be considered out of combat is illegal. Attacking civilian targets unless military necessary is illegal. (Wanting to speed things up is not a legitimate reason.) You will note that the Bush administration was accused of war crimes by several parties, including Ramsey Clark. These things were internationally condemned, on account of being fucked up. Again, the infrastructure destruction caused, by a conservative estimate, at least 100.000 civilian deaths. Hospitals had no power, medicine could not be kept refrigerated or even transported to places it was needed, water purification was impossible. The basic functioning of a modern, industrial society was halted, the destruction called near-apocalyptic by an UN survey.

The attack was referred to, by officials and the media, as a "turkey shoot," enough so that the verbage is utilized in the Wikipedia article and even linked to an article about the definition of the term.

It wasn't an attack, it was a slaughter. It was completely unnecessary and done only out of a combination of spite, malice, and a sort of callous joy.

"We would have done it in WWII" well the USAF nuked a couple of cities in WWII, don't think lobbing a MIRV over Baghdad would have been excuseable either. That's not an excuse.

No, he is saying it would have been worsein WW2.
The technology of guided munitions has saved -probably- millions of lives at this point vs using large bombing campaigns that were done just 20 years earlier in Vietnam.

Otoh millions of lives may have been saved by strategic bombing not being terribly accurate, leaving infrastructure much more intact.

Regardless, I don't think the allied bombardments were all entirely justified then either. And the Axis were doing the same things and they were a huge threat and drastic measures were likely needed to win or prevent continued atrocities.

The coalition obliterated the Iraqis. We lost 147 men in combat. They lost 50k. The ground campaign took less than a week. (it is very likely that, based on a misunderstanding, Saddam invaded because he thought the US would not get involved. It was called an act of madness at the time because it was mad to think they could win if the US did intervene. The US military so far outclasses other armed forces that there is no other outcome than loss.)

Edit: But I think we're getting off topic so unless anyone wants to do a thread about military strategy and war let's leave it.

Regardless of the legality of the Highway of Death, it seems hard to justify morally. For one thing, I do not think it was necessary to end the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. More importantly, Iraqi soldiers are people too, unnecessarily slaughtering thousands of them is callous in its disregard for human life.

"We would have done it in WWII" well the USAF nuked a couple of cities in WWII, don't think lobbing a MIRV over Baghdad would have been excuseable either. That's not an excuse.

No, he is saying it would have been worsein WW2.
The technology of guided munitions has saved -probably- millions of lives at this point vs using large bombing campaigns that were done just 20 years earlier in Vietnam.

I'm glad that the US is not doing to Afghanistan what it did to Vietnam and Korea - unconscionable atrocities from any reasonable perspective - but to describe US bombs as "saving lives" is post-Orwellian levels of doublespeak.

Regardless of the legality of the Highway of Death, it seems hard to justify morally. For one thing, I do not think it was necessary to end the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. More importantly, Iraqi soldiers are people too, unnecessarily slaughtering thousands of them is callous in its disregard for human life.

"We would have done it in WWII" well the USAF nuked a couple of cities in WWII, don't think lobbing a MIRV over Baghdad would have been excuseable either. That's not an excuse.

No, he is saying it would have been worsein WW2.
The technology of guided munitions has saved -probably- millions of lives at this point vs using large bombing campaigns that were done just 20 years earlier in Vietnam.

I'm glad that the US is not doing to Afghanistan what it did to Vietnam and Korea - unconscionable atrocities from any reasonable perspective - but to describe US bombs as "saving lives" is post-Orwellian levels of doublespeak.

Reduced the number of casualties vs. had we used older tactics is far more accurate than thinking these bombs, once they land, purify water, build schools and grow crops or something.

Really loved the part of Pence’s eulogy where he talked about Bush being the first sitting VP to win the Presidential election and other comparisons between himself and Bush.

His erection probably busted a hole in the podium.

Wait, what? John motherfucking Adams would like to have a word.

Mike Pence's nickname as governor was Mike Dense for a reason

It cracks me up that they sent Pence in there to deliver the remarks because Trump can't be relied on to not fuck it up/make it all about himself. And then Mike Pence goes and does the same shit anyway.

Really loved the part of Pence’s eulogy where he talked about Bush being the first sitting VP to win the Presidential election and other comparisons between himself and Bush.

His erection probably busted a hole in the podium.

Wait, what? John motherfucking Adams would like to have a word.

Mike Pence's nickname as governor was Mike Dense for a reason

It cracks me up that they sent Pence in there to deliver the remarks because Trump can't be relied on to not fuck it up/make it all about himself. And then Mike Pence goes and does the same shit anyway.

Wait, Trump didn't even speak?

Wow. I was really hoping for a headline about how he called JEB low energy at his own father's funeral.